Green v. United States
Headline: Denial leaves retrial allowed after a DEA agent’s improper comment; Court refuses to review lower-court ruling that permits a second trial following a mistrial caused by government witness misconduct.
Holding: The Court declined to review the Fourth Circuit’s ruling, leaving in place a decision that allows a second trial after a mistrial caused by a government agent’s improper reference to a defendant’s past conviction.
- Leaves the lower-court ruling in place, allowing a second trial after this mistrial.
- Keeps unsettled whether government-witness misconduct universally bars retrial.
- Affects defendants in drug cases involving government witness misconduct.
Summary
Background
A man tried for conspiring to distribute heroin faced the Government’s chief witness, a Drug Enforcement Administration agent. During cross-examination the agent made an improper reference to the defendant’s prior armed robbery conviction. The defense successfully moved for a mistrial. The defendant was reindicted, his motion to dismiss the second indictment was denied, and the Fourth Circuit affirmed that result. The Supreme Court denied review of that ruling.
Reasoning
The key question was whether a retrial must be barred when a mistrial was caused by deliberate Government misconduct. Justice Marshall’s dissent argues that prior Supreme Court decisions protect defendants from being retried when governmental overreaching forces a mistrial, even if the misconduct was intended generally to prejudice the defense rather than specifically to provoke a mistrial. He also contends the rule should apply when a government agent who played a leading role in the prosecution (not just a casual witness) causes the problem. Because federal appeals courts are split on these points, Marshall would have granted review to resolve the disagreement.
Real world impact
By denying review, the Court left the lower-court decision intact, so a second trial may proceed in this case. The denial leaves unsettled whether similar misconduct by government witnesses bars retrial across all circuits. Marshall’s view — that broad governmental overreaching should prevent retrial — did not carry the day, but he urged the Court to address the split among appeals courts.
Dissents or concurrances
Justice Marshall dissented from the denial of review and would have granted the petition so the Court could decide the split over the scope of the double-jeopardy rule.
Opinions in this case:
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?